5 ms·

What is a more core principle of feminism, equal treatment of the sexes or empowerment of women? These are not synonymous.

by tom-_- 8y ago

headmelted 8y ago
Just wanted to tell you that yes, you really do have a valid point here. Society isn't ready to confront this in 2018 though, so it won't stop us both getting downvoted to oblivion. Take this as me tilting a glass in your direction before a wave of hate sinks the ship.
- dhimes 8y ago
  Climbing aboard the ship. I have thought of it as the difference between women's rights activists (equal rights for all) and feminism (empowerment of women).
  - RangerScience 8y ago
    I would agree that both of these positions exist. AFAIK, particularly since the 80s, the terms are flipped - AFAIK, feminism is about equal rights for all, instead of the other way around. But I agree that both foo and bar exist.
RangerScience 8y ago
This is a real question, but, also an unanswerable question, and also an incorrect question; it's both, and sometimes in ways that are impossible to distinguish - it's also neither. Like basically any large social movement, you're not going to find multiple core principles and be unable to pick one that is "more core". I realize that's all possible answers to that question. Stick with me for a moment. You can look at the suffrage movement - literally, the seeking of a right that men had that women didn't - and consider it both "reaching for equal treatment" and "empowerment". Empowerment was the means by which equal treatment was approached. So in that way, it's both at the same time. If you look at feminism in medical research, one of the major points is that most medical research is/was done on the male body. So then feminism in this realm is about equal representation in the experimental populations (equal treatment) but also sometimes about women-specific research, such as birth control (women's empowerment). So in that way, it's both, at different times. If you look at third wave feminism (started in the late 80s) - which many of us probably by default consider "modern" feminism since it's what we grew up with - it introduced the concept of "intersectionality", which is literally about more than women/men. Combine that with the heavy overlap with LGTBQ+, and it starts being about equal treatment and empowerment of _people_ irrespective of woman-hood / sex. So in that way it's neither. So now we're on fourth wave feminism (according to Wikipedia) which (AFAIK) is entirely about "stop doing shitty things to people, specifically these shitty things to these groups of people". And yes, the heavy emphasis is on women and minorities, but the "core principle" is "stop doing shitty things to people". So, in that way, it's neither. If that's still not all clear, this question you've asked is kind of like asking "which is a more core principle of Christianity; love of Jesus or worship of God?", or like asking, "which is a more core principle of Amazon Web Services; on-demand computing power, or not managing your own hardware"? Or - and this one's a bit more out there - "which is the best peak in the Adirondaks?". You have too many people involved to have an actual answer to that question, but you can identify the possible answers (the peaks) the same way you can identify the possible more core principles of something. But like the peaks, there's gonna be a set where asking "which is more core" is an unanswerable question.
- tom-_- 8y ago
  It's a question that I imagine Feminists must answer when confronted with a scenario where one "principle" is in direct conflict with another. I believe you've covered "AND, OR and NOR" in your examples what about XOR?
  - RangerScience 8y ago
    Conflict between principles is something that any entity capable of holding multiple principles must deal with. You do it (mulling things over). The government does it (courts). Social movement do it (public conversations). If you're looking for XOR instances in feminism, you don't have to look far. The sex industry and burkas are both great examples of value conflict in feminism.
cwkoss 8y ago
I think it is interesting to consider that whenever their is a cultural shift in opinion, if you were to chart the populations opinion over time, it would look like a bell curve sliding in the direction of an axis. To what extent are 'extreme' long-tail opinions necessary to shift the center of the bell curve? Which cohorts along the curve have the most influence on velocity of the center point? specific to this example: Premise - Equal treatment of the sexes is a noble goal. - Currently society values women as less to some extent. - An inversion of sexism that places women over men would also be undesirable. - When people fight for a position, they often compromise to achieve progress. Conclusion: - Fighting for equality can only asymptotically approach equality, while never reaching it. - The 'extreme' viewpoints on the long-tail of cultural opinion that women should receive not just equal treatment but unequal benefit from society may be a fundamental requirement for the centroid of the population curve to reach the equality point. I'm not convinced of this idea (or even all the premises), but I think it's interesting. Wondering if anyone could suggest further reading on this subject.
- adiusmus 8y ago
  To assist with your reading I’d suggest you create a list of legal rights that men have that women don’t. Then create a list of legal rights that women have that men don’t. This exercise will lead you into interesting territory.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

What is a more core principle of feminism, equal treatment of the sexes or empowerment of women? These are not synonymous.

by tom-_- 8y ago

What is a more core principle of feminism, equal treatment of the sexes or empowerment of women? These are not synonymous.

headmelted 8y ago

Just wanted to tell you that yes, you really do have a valid point here. Society isn't ready to confront this in 2018 though, so it won't stop us both getting downvoted to oblivion. Take this as me tilting a glass in your direction before a wave of hate sinks the ship.

dhimes 8y ago
Climbing aboard the ship. I have thought of it as the difference between women's rights activists (equal rights for all) and feminism (empowerment of women).
- RangerScience 8y ago
  I would agree that both of these positions exist. AFAIK, particularly since the 80s, the terms are flipped - AFAIK, feminism is about equal rights for all, instead of the other way around. But I agree that both foo and bar exist.

RangerScience 8y ago

This is a real question, but, also an unanswerable question, and also an incorrect question; it's both, and sometimes in ways that are impossible to distinguish - it's also neither. Like basically any large social movement, you're not going to find multiple core principles and be unable to pick one that is "more core". I realize that's all possible answers to that question. Stick with me for a moment. You can look at the suffrage movement - literally, the seeking of a right that men had that women didn't - and consider it both "reaching for equal treatment" and "empowerment". Empowerment was the means by which equal treatment was approached. So in that way, it's both at the same time. If you look at feminism in medical research, one of the major points is that most medical research is/was done on the male body. So then feminism in this realm is about equal representation in the experimental populations (equal treatment) but also sometimes about women-specific research, such as birth control (women's empowerment). So in that way, it's both, at different times. If you look at third wave feminism (started in the late 80s) - which many of us probably by default consider "modern" feminism since it's what we grew up with - it introduced the concept of "intersectionality", which is literally about more than women/men. Combine that with the heavy overlap with LGTBQ+, and it starts being about equal treatment and empowerment of _people_ irrespective of woman-hood / sex. So in that way it's neither. So now we're on fourth wave feminism (according to Wikipedia) which (AFAIK) is entirely about "stop doing shitty things to people, specifically these shitty things to these groups of people". And yes, the heavy emphasis is on women and minorities, but the "core principle" is "stop doing shitty things to people". So, in that way, it's neither. If that's still not all clear, this question you've asked is kind of like asking "which is a more core principle of Christianity; love of Jesus or worship of God?", or like asking, "which is a more core principle of Amazon Web Services; on-demand computing power, or not managing your own hardware"? Or - and this one's a bit more out there - "which is the best peak in the Adirondaks?". You have too many people involved to have an actual answer to that question, but you can identify the possible answers (the peaks) the same way you can identify the possible more core principles of something. But like the peaks, there's gonna be a set where asking "which is more core" is an unanswerable question.

tom-_- 8y ago
It's a question that I imagine Feminists must answer when confronted with a scenario where one "principle" is in direct conflict with another. I believe you've covered "AND, OR and NOR" in your examples what about XOR?
- RangerScience 8y ago
  Conflict between principles is something that any entity capable of holding multiple principles must deal with. You do it (mulling things over). The government does it (courts). Social movement do it (public conversations). If you're looking for XOR instances in feminism, you don't have to look far. The sex industry and burkas are both great examples of value conflict in feminism.

cwkoss 8y ago

I think it is interesting to consider that whenever their is a cultural shift in opinion, if you were to chart the populations opinion over time, it would look like a bell curve sliding in the direction of an axis. To what extent are 'extreme' long-tail opinions necessary to shift the center of the bell curve? Which cohorts along the curve have the most influence on velocity of the center point? specific to this example: Premise - Equal treatment of the sexes is a noble goal. - Currently society values women as less to some extent. - An inversion of sexism that places women over men would also be undesirable. - When people fight for a position, they often compromise to achieve progress. Conclusion: - Fighting for equality can only asymptotically approach equality, while never reaching it. - The 'extreme' viewpoints on the long-tail of cultural opinion that women should receive not just equal treatment but unequal benefit from society may be a fundamental requirement for the centroid of the population curve to reach the equality point. I'm not convinced of this idea (or even all the premises), but I think it's interesting. Wondering if anyone could suggest further reading on this subject.

adiusmus 8y ago
To assist with your reading I’d suggest you create a list of legal rights that men have that women don’t. Then create a list of legal rights that women have that men don’t. This exercise will lead you into interesting territory.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]